Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
of eight, because john mccain does not like that term. it is the group of eight. i give him a huge credit for his work, and marco rubio, and lindsey gramm, and jeff like. this might not just be an opportunity to fix immigration, which would be huge, but an opportunity for us to demonstrate to the country that finally we can do something that is hard, and we can do it in a bipartisan way. >> when you think about it and you stepped out these principles, including finding a track for citizens to get legal -- but you bump them back behind those that are there. i have read through them. but what point, when you get into deeper specifics -- i have read through the colorado compact and what the group of eight have put on the table. it reads as principals. it does not read specifically. when do you begin losing the bipartisan flamboyance? >> there will be bumps in the road. it will not be an easy thing to do. if it worries you -- were easy to do, it would have been done a long time ago. there are parties ready to get this done, who have heard from home the same things i am hearing. i think we hav
clinton, john mccain, joe biden, and newt gingrich were falling all over themselves to express their support for israel. the only exception to that rule was senator chuck hagel. i don't have anything to go with that with what you might have said but -- some of the concerns -- i used to say when i was the whip in the house you can count on the house and the senate to be among other thing, always pro-israel. i think that is the main stream of our views. i've seen a number of times that you've said you can be pro-israel but that does not mean you have to be for everything that israel is for. they are what they are. they are reported from comments that you made that are out of the context of the other comments. also, earlier today, i asked you about the bloated pentagon. you said that -- those comments were before the sequestration bill passed. they were after the bill passed. sequestration passed on august 2 and the interview was on august 29. what you said on august 29 of -- in that "financial times" interview you said "the defense department, i think -- this is your quote "the d
colleagues, including senator john mccain. that exchange is about an hour and a half into the hearing. later, we will get your thoughts about the nomination and hearing on our phone lines at 11:00 p.m. eastern, 8:00 pacific. carl levin chairs the armed services committee and makes the opening statement. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. before i begin, i want to first welcome senator inhofe as the new ranking republican on our committee, succeeding senator mccain. senator mccain has been a great partner over the past six years, and i thank him for all the work he has done to get bills enacted, his leadership on a host of issues, his support for the work of this committee, and for always keeping our hearings likely. -- lively. senator inhofe has shown his strong commitment to the national defense over his 20 years on this committee. and i know that we are going to work well toge
. it is my honor to introduce senator john mccain, who needs no introduction. >> but he always appreciate it. [laughter] i thank senator enhofe for his attention tot his issue. he pointed out the devastating effect of sequestration. if it is implemented, it will cut every ship, truck, a tank, research and development across the board. the secretary of defense panetta, a man that i admire greatly, called sequestration a meat ax approach. i think it is important to note, according to one economic analysis, it costs a loss of $350 in full-time direct jobs, 650,000 indirect job losses. that is a lot of jobs. in these difficult times. secretary panetta said, "this has become a very serious threat to our national security." para chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says the same thing. in the late 1970's, after the vietnam war, the chief of staff testified before congress that we had a "hollow army," which then caused the attention of the american people and one of the reasons why ronald reagan was elected to be president of the united states, because of our rapid decline in national defense that
and not doing it in a dumb way. senators like john mccain have made similar statements to what scott said. your republican governor, along with other governors around the country, said they want congress to stop the sequester, stop these cuts. but i just have to be honest with you. there are too many republicans in congress right now who refuse to compromise even an inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes and special interest tax breaks. and that's what's holding things up right now. keep in mind nobody's asking them to raise income tax rates. all we're asking is to consider closing tax loopholes and deductions that the speaker of the house, john boehner, said he was willing to do just a few months ago. he said there were a bunch of loopholes and deductions you could close. said you could raise $800 billion, $1 trillion by closing loopholes. we're not even asking for that much. all we're asking is that they close loopholes for the well-off and well connected, for hedge fund managers or oil companies or corporate jet owners who are all doing very well and don't need these tax loopholes so we
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)